Bristol City Council (202218653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218653

Bristol City Council

30 October 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have sent information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The standard of adaptations to the resident’s wet room and kitchen.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a decant.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defective windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why aspects of a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

j. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the standard of adaptations to her kitchen and wet room. The aids and adaptations service is managed by the council, but not in its role as a landlord. Consequently, this Service cannot investigate this aspect of the complaint. Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
Although this part of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, to provide context, we have referred to the adaptations works in the report.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. Her landlord is a council. She lives in an adapted one-bedroom bungalow with her husband. The resident is disabled and has multiple health conditions that have affected her mobility. She uses a self-propelling wheelchair indoors. The resident receives a care package from the council and receives daily help with her personal care needs.
In 2018, the resident told the landlord that there was a problem with the bathroom window locks. The landlord responded in December 2018 to say that it would need to order parts, but it would change the locks once the parts had arrived. The resident said that the landlord did not follow this up.
In or around 2018, the resident asked for adaptations to her kitchen. An occupational therapist’s (OT) assessment supported her application. Prior to the start of the works, the surveyor emailed the resident to ask if she could stay somewhere else until contractors had finished the works. She replied that she had nowhere else to stay and would not be able to meet the costs of a hotel.
Between November and December 2019, the kitchen works went ahead with the resident living in the property. However, she was hospitalised with respiratory difficulties during this time. She said that this was because the dust suppression measures put in place by the contractor were inadequate.
The contractors were due to complete snagging and start the bathroom in February 2020, but this was delayed. At various periods between March 2020 and December 2021, works were disrupted because of government restrictions in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially the resident was not willing to be temporarily decanted because she was concerned about COVID-19 virus transmission. She asked for advice from her GP. The landlord said it would consult with its housing officer about a temporary move to another property.
In March 2021, the contractors said that they did not believe that it was safe for the works to go ahead while the resident was living in the property. Between May and July 2021, the landlord’s housing officer made contact with the resident by email and in a home visit to outline the temporary move options available to her. In August 2021, the resident rejected the offer of decant hotel accommodation as she said it was unsuitable given her care needs and the risks of COVID-19 transmission. The landlord investigated alternative temporary housing options, including a chalet or static caravan, to accommodate the resident’s needs.
In September 2021, the surveyor agreed with the resident and the contractor that some of the low-risk works could be done while the resident remained living in the property, with the dust generating works completed once the resident had moved out. The resident agreed to move out of the property for 5 days to allow contractors to do these works.
The low-risk works were completed between 7 February 2022 and April 2022. On 11 July 2022, the contractor contacted the landlord to say that they would not be returning to complete further works in the property until the landlord had decanted the resident. In September 2022, the resident said that she did not want the landlord’s approved contractors to return to do the works. She has also said that she will not move into decant accommodation until she had assurances from the landlord that the remaining works would not take more than 5 days.
The resident made a complaint through this Service on 16 April 2023. She said:
1. The landlord did not decant her while contractors were undertaking the works.
2. The landlord has not repaired her windows, and she has been consistently chasing them about this for 4 years.
The landlord responded on 12 May 2023 and said that:
1. It had discussed a decant with the resident prior to works starting but she did not accept the offer.
2. The resident had not asked the landlord to decant her while contractors completed kitchen works. The landlord offered this during bathroom works however the resident declined this.
3. It had not received earlier requests to repair the resident’s windows but had arranged for someone to inspect the windows on 15 May 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord the same day and asked it to escalate her complaint.
On 23 May 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint again. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 June 2023. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in sending the response.
2. The landlord repeated its response at stage 1 that the resident did not express a wish for it to decant her during the kitchen or bathroom works.
3. It said it had inspected the resident’s windows on 15 May 2023. It would renew the handle in the resident’s bedroom, adjust the patio doors and renew the keep to the bathroom window.
4. It did not award further compensation.
The landlord has recorded the window repairs as complete on 4 August 2023. There has been no progress with the snagging and works to the wet room floor since 2022, because of the resident’s position on a decant and her reluctance to allow the landlord appointed contractors to complete the works. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as works remained outstanding and she had no communication from the landlord about when these works would be done. The resident would like the outstanding works to be completed without delay. She has said that she would agree to a temporary move but for a period of 5 days only.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and.
3. learn from outcomes.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that she had two hospital admissions, because of dust inhalation, due to ineffective dust proof measures put in place by contractors during the works. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was admitted to hospital during the works and does not dispute the resident’s account. However, this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, health conditions. Matters of personal injury or damage to health are not part of the complaints process and should be referred to the courts or the landlord’s insurer as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a decant

The landlord’s decant policy says that wherever possible, it will complete major repairs and improvement works while the tenant stays in their home.
It says that it will consider a decant where the property will be unsafe for an extended period and when the tenant has a disability, and it could not achieve reasonable adjustments to allow works to take place without a move to temporary accommodation.
The policy also says that it will pay up to a maximum of £50 per night for the resident to stay with friends or family. Where this is not possible, it can arrange a short-term planned decant where it does not expect works to last more than 3 weeks. In this instance, it will offer B&B or hotel accommodation and where there are no facilities to prepare meals, it will pay for breakfast. The landlord will consider the resident’s needs in terms of accessibility, and location. During the decant period, the landlord will not expect the resident to pay more than their rent or will pay the lesser of cost of rent or temporary accommodation.
The landlord has a detailed decant procedure, which outlines in a flow-chart the steps it must take in considering an emergency, short-term or long-term decant. Its procedure outlines the steps the landlord must take to decide if the household can remain in the property while the works went ahead. This will involve a joint visit with a housing officer and surveyor and an assessment of whether the property is currently habitable and whether the works can be completed in a way that minimises disruption to the resident and their household. The landlord must complete a form to record the outcome of the assessment.
Before the works started, the landlord’s records evidence that it met with the resident in September 2019 and asked if she had anyone she could stay with for the duration of the works. The resident said that she did not. The landlord’s decant procedure does say that it will give consideration first to whether a resident could stay with friends or family for the duration of the works. However, when this option was not available, it should have discussed the possibility of a decant with the resident.
The landlord should have undertaken an assessment at any early stage to consider whether it could safely complete the works with the resident living in the property, considering her disability. It should have reassured the resident about the costs it would cover including the rent liability for the duration of the works. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its procedure prior to the start of the works, which was a failing.
Between, and following, COVID-19 lockdown periods in 2020 and 2021, the landlord was not able to arrange a decant with the resident because either the hotels were closed, or she was waiting for advice from her GP about the risks of virus transmission while in hotel accommodation. This was understandable, and it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to put works and decant arrangements on hold until the resident had received further advice, given the circumstances.
The landlord’s housing officer also took practical steps to outline the decant options available to the resident. They clearly explained the reasons why a self-contained property would not be suitable for the resident, given her needs. They presented other options and agreed to discuss the resident’s reservations about a move with her, which showed that they were responsive to the resident’s views and needs. They followed this up with the resident and visited her at home to explore these in more detail to alleviate any concerns that she had.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the challenges that the landlord faced in finding accessible and safe decant accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic, for residents with disabilities who were clinically vulnerable. However, as the Ombudsman has highlighted in its recent report of September 2024 focusing on decants; effective and robust communication is key in arranging successful moves. Landlords must focus on individual circumstances, particularly where there are medical needs. “Every move will be individual, and communication must be tailored.” This is particularly relevant where the landlord is a council where the resident may be supported by other council services.
The landlord took a pragmatic approach by arranging to complete minimal risk works while the resident remained in occupation, in line with her wishes, rather than decanting her for an extended period pending completion of all the outstanding works.
Contractors completed most of the snagging works between February and April 2022, with the remaining works including the replacement wet room floor and dust producing snagging works to the kitchen and bathroom. The contractors have said that it could not complete these works while the resident was still in occupation. As contractors must follow their own health and safety procedures, the landlord must be guided by this.
The resident has since said that she will only agree to move out of the property for a period of five days, while contractors complete outstanding works. She has also said that she does not want the council’s approved contractors to complete the works, which has led to an impasse. The standard of works completed is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be considered as part of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman accepts that it would be impractical for the landlord to stipulate that works take 5 days only. This is because works can sometimes overrun for reasons that are outside the control of either the landlord or its contractors.
While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a request, this will often require an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation.
While this service does not question the resident’s reasons for not agreeing to a decant at this time, and acknowledges that the resident was, understandably, concerned about being away from her home for more than 5 days, these added delays were outside of the landlord’s control.
This Service finds that the landlord should have had a fuller discussion with the resident about a decant prior to the start of the works. It should have taken further steps to alleviate any of the resident’s concerns. From the information provided, the resident did not understand what a decant involved and she was under the mistaken belief that she would have to meet the costs of both her rent and the temporary accommodation. This may have influenced her decision to stay in her home at the time. Further, it is not for the resident to request a decant, but for the landlord to consider if one is necessary for it to complete the works safely.
While works remain outstanding that may present a risk to the resident, it would be proper for the landlord to make attempts to re-engage with the resident to further discuss options for a decant prior to it arranging the remaining works. There is no evidence that it has done so, which was a failing.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its decants policy or procedure prior to the works starting and for this reason the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration. An early discussion would have highlighted the resident’s health needs and would have provided reassurance to her about the costs the landlord would meet. It would also have allowed adequate time to find suitable decant accommodation, particularly when the resident is disabled and would need fully adapted temporary accommodation.
However, in 2021 it did follow its policy by taking steps to explore different temporary housing options with the resident, including meeting with her at home to discuss this in more detail. It also demonstrated that it was resident-focussed by looking to minimise disruption to the resident by assessing what works could safely be done while she remained in the property.
As the landlord did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint during its internal complaints procedure, it has not awarded redress for this aspect of the complaint. Following its remedies guidance, this Service orders the landlord to pay the resident £250 in compensation. In assessing compensation, we have given consideration to the likely impact on the resident, given her vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defective windows

The resident has provided evidence that she reported problems with the window locks in 2018, and the landlord had agreed to order and replace the parts. The landlord must undertake repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, and this will include windows and external doors. These obligations are outlined in s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and are contained in the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy.
Neither party has provided evidence of any further correspondence in relation to the windows between 2018 and 2023, when the resident raised this as part of her complaint. The resident has said that she had been chasing up repairs following the installation of cladding, four years prior.
While this Service does not dispute that the resident contacted the landlord about this issue between these dates, in the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence, we cannot make a finding about the resident’s efforts in following this up or the landlord’s failure to respond.
The resident raised this again in her complaint of 17 April 2023. The landlord treated this as a service request and arranged to inspect the windows on the 15 May 2023. This was a routine repair. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a target timescale for routine repairs. However, industry standard considers 28 days reasonable for a repair of this type. The landlord has not provided an explanation why the repair took almost 3 months from inspection to complete. In the absence of an explanation, the Ombudsman concludes that this delay was unreasonable.
Further, the absence of records by the landlord relating to the windows prior to 2023 is cause for concern. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we are not able to conclude that an action did or did not take place. Nether are we able to conclude that the landlord followed its repairs policy.
The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ repair requests and their responses. This should include details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, works undertaken and completion dates.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint and orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 days and respond to them in 15 working days. If there was going to be a delay in it responding, the policy says that it will inform the resident of the reasons for this along with a new date for a response. It would respond to Stage 2 complaint within 15 working days from the date it received the escalation request.
The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which says that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. The Code became statutory as of 1 April 2024, which means by law, all member landlords must follow it. The landlord has since amended its policy to mirror the provisions of the Code.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 3 days outside of its target response deadlines, however this was a minor delay and is likely not to have caused detriment to the resident.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 12 May 2023. She requested this again on 23 May 2023 as she had not received an acknowledgement. The landlord responded on 21 June 2023, 15 days outside of its target response timescales. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension to the deadline for response with the resident in advance.
The landlord followed paragraph 3.14 of the Code by covering all the points raised in the complaint in its response. It also appropriately referred the resident to its insurers, where she had asked for compensation due to personal injury. Although it did apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response, it did not offer redress for this as it had not increased its compensation offer following its stage 1 response.
The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure by the landlord for the delays in its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and, following our remedies guidance, orders that it pay her £70 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the standard of adaptations to her wet room and kitchen are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident the amount of £520 which includes:
  1. £250 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s handling of the decant.
  2. £200 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s handling of repairs to her windows.
  3. £70 for the resident’s time and trouble caused by delays in its complaints handling.
2. The landlord is to confirm with this Service once it has made this payment. Should the resident have any rent arrears or tenancy debt on her account, the landlord should not arrange for the payment of compensation to be set-off against her arrears, rather it should arrange to make payment direct to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report:
1. the landlord must meet with the resident to discuss and explore suitable options and timescales for a decant to enable outstanding works to progress.
2. Once this meeting has taken place, the landlord must inform this Service what has been agreed with the resident.